Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/01/1988 - Minutes - Planning & Zoning CommissionMINUTES • CITY OF COLLEGE STATION, TEXAS Planning and Zoning Commission September 1, 1988 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Sawtelle, Members Michel, Moore, Dresser, and Davis MEMBERS ABSENT: Members Stewart and Colson STAFF PRESENT: Director of Planning Callaway, City Engineer Pullen, Senior Planner Kee, Assistant City Attorney Banks and Planning Technician Volk AaBNDA ITBM NO. 1: Approval of Minutes - meeting of August 4, 1988. Mr. Dresser made a motion to approve the minutes as submitted. Mrs. Davis seconded the motion which carried by a vote of 4-0-1 (Sawtelle). AaBNDA ITBM NO. 2: Hear visitors. No one spoke. AaBNDA ITBM NO. 3: 88-207: A public hearing to consider a Final (resubdivision) plat of Lot 4B Bloch 14C SouthKOOd Valley Section • 19 subdivision. Mr. Callaway explained that this resubdivision plat of commercially zoned property simply divides one large lot into two smaller lots with a provision for shared access via a private access easement which runs from Longmire Drive between the 2 lots to a point on the property line of an adjacent lot. He referred to a Presubmission Conference report which was included in the packets and indicated staff recommends approval of the proposed plat. Mr. Dresser asked what the 10 foot utility easement which is located within a 30 foot access easement is for and Mr. Callaway stated the owner's representative would be better able to answer the question than he. The public hearing was opened. Dan Sears, 1009 Madera, came forward and identified himself as the representative for the owner, Mr. W. D. Fitch. He requested approval of the plat as submitted, and offered to answer any questions the Commissioners might have. Mr. Dresser asked him about the 10 foot easement which is located inside a 30 foot access easement, and Mr. Sears approached the plat on the wall, and answered the question, but answered it in such a manner that neither the recording microphones nor the Planning Technician could discern it. No one else spoke and the public hearing was closed. Mr. Dresser then made a motion to approve the plat as submitted. Mr. Moore seconded the motion which carried unanimously. (5-0). • AGBNDA ITBM NO. 4: Discussion of Standards for Teaporary Parking Facilities. • Mrs. Kee briefly highlighted a proposed set of standards to be used in reviewing proposals for temporary/overflow parking lots. {The complete set of standards was included in the packet, and can be found in Planning file #88-805). Mr. Dresser said that he likes the suggested standards, but wondered how they would come into play. Mrs. Kee explained that those standards would be put into play just as any standards for any other site plan review, and hopefully the applicant would make inquiries before the fact of turning in a site plan to be reviewed. Mrs. Dresser asked if these types of lots would be approved as Conditional Use Permits and Mrs. Kee replied that was not being suggested by staff, but they certainly could be considered Conditional Use Permits and the standards suggested have many similarities to the process taken and the consideration given to requests for Conditional Use Permits. Mr. Michel asked what would happen if after the fact staff noticed a violation and the illegal parking lot was already being used; should that be addressed somehow? Mrs. Sawtelle agreed that the possibility of that happening again should be addressed, and reminded everyone that agreement had previously been reached that the temporary facility could be used only 12 months, either from the date it was built, the date of approval, or the date of notification of the offense. She said it might be wise to notify people in the city that an ordinance amendment addressing temporary, overflow parking lots is being prepared at this time. • Mr. Dresser asked if these types of facilities which are now in use will be grandfathered in and Mr. Callaway interjected that he does not think anything which has been constructed in violation of current ordinances would be grandfathered, but there are some non-conforming lots in use which were not built in violation of ordinances, and these, too, should somehow be addressed. Mr. Moore asked about the standard which reads "The lot must be designed to accommodate drainage in accordance with the City's drainage ordinance. Curbs, gutters or other improvements may be required where necessary to comply with drainage regulations." Mrs. Kee stated the intent of this standard is to have a recommendation made to the P.R.C. by the City Engineer, and then the P.R.C. will make a recommendation to the Planning 8 Zoning Commission. Mr. Moore then asked if a temporary facility can be renewed after 12 months, or if the 12 month limitation would definitely terminate the use and existence. Mr. Callaway said that an extension time could certainly be addressed, but he would recommend setting a limit on that as well. Mrs. Sawtelle reminded everyone that the consensus was that anything longer than 12 months would become more permanent than temporary. Mrs. Davis questioned whether the absolute requirement of fencing or landscaping materials for screening would make a temporary facility more noticeable than nothing at all. Mr. Dresser said he likes the mandatory landscaping and/or screening requirement. Mrs. Kee pointed out that as the standard is worded, the specific requirement is left up to the Commission's discretion. • Mr. Dresser asked what the result would be if the Aldersgate project was reviewed using these standards and Mrs. Kee said some type of screening would be required, the P&Z Minutes 9-1-88 page 2 • • access surface would either have to be improved or removed, and the time period would certainly be addressed. After additional discussion, the Commission directed staff to prepare an ordinance to amend the zoning ordinance to include a section addressing temporary parking facilities, with the ordinance including a time limit of 12 months or additional action by the Commission, mandatory landscaping or screening as suggested in the memo submitted for consideration at this meeting, the addition of the phrase "as approved by the City Engineer" at the end of the second standard listed and questioned earlier by Mr. Moore, and some means of addressing existing non-conforming lots which are not in violation of the current ordinance. The Commission also directed staff to submit this amendment to the Commission in the form of a public hearing. AaSNDA I?BM NO. 5: Discussion of Ownership Interest as it relates to Parking. Mrs. Kee read Section 9.2.B from the Zoning Ordinance which addresses providing off- street parking on property other than the premises on which the structure the parking serves is located when the property is under the same ownership whether in fee simple or "a lesser ownership interest". She explained that the ordinance was amended to include the language "lesser ownership interest" in 1986, but since that time staff has never established a specific policy that defines that phrase. She continued her explanation by stating that recently the Zoning Board of Adjustment was called upon to interpret the phrase, and the result of that consideration was that the ZBA ruled that a lease was not enough to meet the intent of the ordinance, so the Legal Department now is asking the Commission to determine what type of ownership would meet the requirement of "a lesser ownership interest". Mrs. Kee reported the City Attorney has offered examples of several kinds of ownership interests which exist; those being easements, easements with time limits, partial ownership of mineral rights, etc. She also suggested that it might be better for the Commission to determine on a case by case basis when parking is being supplied in an appropriate manner. She stated that in considering each case, important items would be that {1)some amount of guarantee that parking will be available for the life of the building/business (An easement with a time limit might be sufficient in the case of a temporary business but not in the case of a large office building}, and (2)the percent of required parking being provided off-site. She then asked for input from the Commission relative to this issue, and added that if it becomes necessary, staff will bring an amendment back as a public hearing at a later date. When asked how this language came about, Mr. Callaway explained the previous ordinance did not contain the language "lesser ownership interest", and when the ordinance was completely revised in 1986, the decision was made to include that language to address larger developments such as the Regional Mall, the Kroger Cent~- etc., where there is one principal owner, but several other owners with lesser interest in the project. Mrs. Kee stated that the Hilton and the Creekside center went to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a variance to allow the use of a cross- parking agreement. • Mr. Moore stated that he thinks it is important for the City to encourage cross- parking agreements, and gave as an example the building which was formerly Ira's which will forever be restricted in it's use because a cross-parking agreement was P&Z Minutes 9-1-88 Page 3 • :7 • never reached with the owner of the adjacent large parking lot. He went on to explain that many hotels now are leased rather than owned, so this whole idea provokes interesting conversation. Mr. Michel stated that he agrees with staff that this phrase should be defined, and additionally that it is a function of this Commission. He stated that examples given in the memo numbered (1) and (2) should be included in any ordinance which is created, but also that the Commission should consider each instance on a case-by-case basis. Assistant City Attorney Banks said that "lesser ownership interest" might be interpreted that a lease is not sufficient ownership under law, but that a 10 year lease might be better than an easement. She continued by suggesting that the language "lesser ownership interest" might be deleted from the ordinance, and leave in "fee simple" as the governing rule. All Commissioners agreed this may well be the best way to handle the amendment, and instructed staff to prepare an amendment to the zoning ordinance which would cover this. AGBAIDA ITB!! NO. 7: Other bnsineas. Mr. Callaway informed the Commission that at the last Project Review Committee meeting, the committee had to address a structure the applicant referred to as "temporary", when in fact, the building is more "permanent" and the location may or may not be "temporary". He stated the P.R.C., at the suggestion of Commissioner Colson, would like the Commission to offer some type of guidance regarding what controls should be considered when review is made of "temporary" structures, especially when they are being placed in large, commercial parking lots. He went on to say that staff will put this item on a future agenda for consideration at the request of Mr. Colson. Mrs. Sawtelle asked about the annual tour of City facilities, and after discussion, it was agreed that staff should set up the tour for a Friday in October, but not the 14th of October. AGBNDA ITBM Ii10. 7: Adjourn. Mr. Michel made a motion to adjourn; Mrs. Davis seconded the motion which carried unanimously. ATTEST: APPROVED: ~Qnn ~J Wr b -- ----- ------------------------- Ch irman Nancy Sawtelle City Secretary, Dian Jones PB:Z Minutes 9-1-88 Page 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GUEST REGISTER DATE SPntPmhPr lY 1988 NAME ADDRESS ., .~ - 2. 3• 4. S. 6. 7• 8. 9• to. • 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23• 24. 25.